KOORSEN et al v. BRIAN FULLER INSURANCE CO. et al

Filing 6

Entry Discussing Motion and Notice of Conflict of Interest, Dismissing Action, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that his insurance agent submitted a claim without his consent for damage allegedly caused by Direct TV. Because this claim does not allege a violation of federal law and the plaintiff did not allege diversity of citizenship, the Court noted in the Entry of February 14, 2017, that it did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim. Dkt. 4 . The plaintiff was directed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The plaintiff has not shown that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. Accordingly, the action is dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Entry of February 14, 2017. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/13/2017. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JAMES A. KOORSEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,
vs.
BRIAN FULLER INSURANCE CO.,
ALLSTATE -- THOMAS BRAND AGENCY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-00439-WTL-TAB

Entry Discussing Motion and Notice of Conflict of Interest,
Dismissing Action, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that his insurance agent submitted a claim without
his consent for damage allegedly caused by Direct TV. Because this claim does not allege a
violation of federal law and the plaintiff did not allege diversity of citizenship, the Court noted in
the Entry of February 14, 2017, that it did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim. Dkt. 4.
The plaintiff was directed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiff has responded with a motion/notice of conflict of interest. He argues that
because the undersigned had dismissed a prior action the plaintiff allegedly brought against the
Richmond Police Department and the City of Richmond, the undersigned has a “conflict of
interest.” The plaintiff has not identified by case number any such prior case, nor has the Court
located a case with those defendants, however, even if the undersigned has dismissed prior cases
brought by the plaintiff, this is not a reason to find a “conflict of interest” or otherwise disqualify
a judge.

Under 28 U.S.C. ' 455(a), a federal judge must disqualify himself “in any proceeding in
which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id. Judicial rulings, routine trial
administration efforts, and ordinary admonishments are not grounds for recusal. See Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 545 (1994). In order to justify recusal under § 455(a), the
impartiality of which a judge is accused will almost always be extrajudicial. Id. at 554; O’Regan
v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975, 988 (7th Cir. 2001); In re Huntington Commons
Assocs., 21 F.3d 157, 158-59 (7th Cir. 1994). Thus, “[w]hen a motion for recusal fails to set forth
an extrajudicial source for the alleged bias and no such source is apparent, the motion should be
denied.” Sprinpangler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 759 F. Supp. 1327, 1329 (S.D.Ind. 1991) (citing
Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461, 1465 (11th Cir. 1988)). “Adverse rulings do not constitute
evidence of judicial bias.” Thomas v. Reese, 787 F.3d 845, 849 (7th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the
plaintiff’s motion/notice of conflict of interest [dkt. 5] is denied.
The plaintiff has not shown that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim.
Accordingly, the action is dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Entry of February 14, 2017.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.

Date: 3/13/17

Distribution:
JAMES A. KOORSEN, JR.
1440 South 14th Street
Richmond, IN 47374

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana